CDP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a GET operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, idempotent, or has side effects. It also doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what constitutes a valid 'emailable page' ID. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method hint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get an emailable page by id'). It wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The structure is clear but overly terse given the lack of other documentation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that there's an output schema (which should describe the return value), the description doesn't need to explain output details. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and two parameters (one optional), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication, error handling, or provide enough context for the agent to use the tool confidently in a real scenario. It's minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'by id' which correlates with 'page_id', but doesn't explain what format the ID should be (e.g., UUID, numeric) or where to obtain it. It also doesn't clarify the optional 'tenant_id' parameter—when it's needed, what happens if omitted, or its relationship to 'page_id'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond naming one parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb 'Get' and resource 'emailable page by id', which clarifies the basic action. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_emailable_pages' (plural) or explain what an 'emailable page' is specifically. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation and domain context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'cdp_list_emailable_pages' for listing pages or 'cdp_get_emailable_page' versus other 'get' operations. There's no context about prerequisites, authentication needs, or typical use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.